Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
JSON.parse vs string.split small fixed array
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
JSON.parse vs String.split
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var array = ["a", "b", "c"] var str = JSON.stringify(array);
Tests:
JSON.parse
JSON.parse(str);
String.split
str.split(',')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
JSON.parse
String.split
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:131.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/131.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 131 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=561404" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
String.split
8.8M/s
JSON.parse
4.8M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
String.split
8,785,471 Ops/sec
JSON.parse
4,816,496 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches: `JSON.parse` and `string.split`. The test case uses a small fixed array of strings, which is first converted to a JSON string using `JSON.stringify(array)`, and then parsed back into an array using `JSON.parse(str)`. **Options being compared** There are only two options being compared: 1. `JSON.parse`: This method parses a JSON string into a JavaScript object. 2. `string.split`: This method splits a string into an array of substrings, using a specified separator (in this case, the comma `,`). **Pros and Cons** * **JSON.parse**: Pros: + Faster execution time, as it's a native JavaScript function optimized for parsing JSON strings. + More concise code, as it eliminates the need to manually iterate over the array elements. Cons: + May be slower if the input string is not in a valid JSON format. + Limited control over the parsing process (e.g., handling circular references). * **string.split**: Pros: + More flexible and customizable, as it allows for specifying the separator and handling edge cases. + Can be faster for larger inputs, as it uses a more efficient algorithm for splitting strings. However, **string.split** has some drawbacks: Cons: + Requires manually iterating over the array elements to process each substring. + May be slower due to the overhead of creating an array of substrings. **Library and its purpose** There is no explicitly mentioned library in this benchmark. However, `JSON.parse` relies on the built-in JavaScript object, which is not a specific library. But, some versions of browsers may use polyfills or alternative implementations for parsing JSON strings. **Special JS feature or syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript functions and data types. **Other alternatives** If the test case were to compare other approaches, some possible alternatives could be: * Using a library like Lodash's `at` function for array indexing. * Implementing a custom parsing algorithm using regular expressions. * Comparing the performance of different string splitting algorithms, such as `split` vs. `substring`. However, in this specific benchmark, only two approaches are being compared: `JSON.parse` and `string.split`.
Related benchmarks
JSON.parse vs string.split small array
JSON.parse vs string.splitd
JSON.parse vs string.splitds
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?